Surprised by terms for boat purchase

[rubberduck]

You are stating the way things are done at the moment, all I'm saying is that they could be improved on. As I stated in an earlier post, it would not be beyond the capabilities of an adventurous broker to ask sellers if they mind him allowing test drives to people he thinks are genuine, with all the legalities such as insurance covered & all the expenses covered. It would be up to sellers what they allow. In my case it may have led to the sale of a used late Sunseeker which was still for sale a year later I recall. As I have stated I was not prepared to sign a contract 1st, whether its the done thing or not. Please note I used the word broker & not dealer, although many are both.

 

[PaulGooch]

When i bought my current boat, my shortlist was two Merry Fisher 805's. Both the same year, similar spec and similar prices. We looked at the first one in Cardiff, over 200 miles and 4 hours away. The owner had to come to the boat to jump start it, because the batteries were flat (annoying as they knew for a week we were making the trip). Anyway, he and the broker showed us around the boat and the owner asked if we wanted a run out in Cardiff Bay. He took us for a spin around the bay, let me drive the boat and was generaal very helpful and pleasant. We might have used 10 litres of diesel.

Second boat was in Upton upon Severn, some 150 or three hours away. Pretty much the same boat, give or take an extra or two, apart from the engine. The Cardiff boat was fitted with a Nanni engine, this one was fitted with a Volvo. The Nanni seemed fine, but i wanted to try the Volvo too. The broker wouldn't even let me have the engine key without an offer, a 10% deposit and a contract. Yeah right, stupid idiot, i've just driven three hours for a jolley. I'm going to leave you with an offer and if it's accepted, i'll drive back another six hour round trip to try the engine.....NOT. Why not phone the owner and tell them you have a potential buyer, with cash, who's just driven 3 hours to view the boat and can we take him for a five minute spin ? Yes, five minutes will be fine and i'll happily pay the fuel, whether i buy it or not.

No chance, the broker was an arrogant ass. I drove home and emailed an offer to the guy from Cardiff (Sunday evening). Next day, ee squeezed me for another grand and the deal was done. We transferred 10% to the brokers client account, they did the paperwork and we completed payment by the end of the week. Collected the boat the following Tuesday.

I also phoned the brokers head office and told them what had happened, actually spoke to the MD. He said they had the policy to stop fender kickers, which they'd had a lot of in the past at their Thames brokerage. I pointed out that we'd driven for three hours to view the boat and he agreed that it was unlikely we were fender kickers. He also said the policy wasn't set in stone and the broker concerned should have used some discretion. She didn't even bother to get off her backside and show us the boat, just slid the cabin key over the desk and stayed in the warm office. Never mind fender kickers, good job we weren't light fingered 805 owners in need of some spares.

Took over a year to sell the boat, so they really did the seller a service.

 

[boatmaster]

If I were a broker I would charge a fee for a test run, refundable on move to purchase or if any major faults are found. I would sell more boats than you

Rest my case rubber duck! with this policy you would fit nicely into the 'less reputable broker box' wouldnt you? my point is, the broker/dealer (whichever) takes a 10% deposit prior to demo on the contractual understanding that if the sea trial is in any way adverse i.e the buyer finds fault (any fault at all) that could not have been identified without trial - he/she gets full deposit back without question (unless the buyer willingly re negotiates with owner). that way the buyer is not hit in the pocket through no fault of thier own, why should they incur costs in the early buying stages if the boat if not up to scratch? the grey area comes where the boat is ashore and lifing fees have been incurred to launch the boat for trial. tricky one.

if i were a buyer i would rather put down a fully refundable deposit, removing the boat from the market, instead of paying for brokers time, which they are already being paid for by the owner, unless i buy it or find major fault. Be realistic a catalalogue of minor faults will put anybody off, its an omen. but under your terms the buyer doesnt have a leg to stand on because none of them major. Oh well dig deep for another test run on something else, fingers crossed this time eh!

dont think so, do you?

 

[Tranona]

You are stating the way things are done at the moment, all I'm saying is that they could be improved on. As I stated in an earlier post, it would not be beyond the capabilities of an adventurous broker to ask sellers if they mind him allowing test drives to people he thinks are genuine, with all the legalities such as insurance covered & all the expenses covered. It would be up to sellers what they allow. In my case it may have led to the sale of a used late Sunseeker which was still for sale a year later I recall. As I have stated I was not prepared to sign a contract 1st, whether its the done thing or not. Please note I used the word broker & not dealer, although many are both.

Depends on what you mean by "improvement" and for whose benefit. Brokers can be very "flexible" if owners are prepared to support them.

Remember buying a used boat through a broker is a contract between individuals, so they can agree to any terms and conditions they want. However the sticking point is how you define your "genuine" buyer. Time and time again brokers (and private sellers) will tell you about the "genuine" buyers who turn into straw. A genuine buyer is somebody who is sufficiently convinced that this is the boat for him that he is prepared to put his money down - with all the safeguards that the contract has.

If he is at an earlier stage where he is not convinced that the boat is for him, why should a private seller try to convince him without some expectation that it will result in a sale? It is different if the owner is in business selling boats - his marketing costs recognise that he may have to deal with people in an earlier stage of their decision making process - and accept the cost of dealing with people who do not turn into buyers.

You will find the same difference in approach if you are buying a house from a developer compared with buying from a private owner. The developer expects, and budgets for timewasters - but a private owner only wants a firm buyer so will instruct his agent to qualify potential purchasers before viewings - and you don't get to live in either type of house before you buy! Just the same with a broker - part of his job is to find qualified buyers - "ready, willing and able", that is they like the boat, can afford it and are ready to proceed subject to the boat being as described.

So if you are not prepared to commit yourself further than declaring you are "genuine" do not be surprised if you are not taken seriously!

 

[rubberduck]

Oh dear, entrenched views. There are several on her that don't like the current accepted process & have voted with their feet in the past, myself included, who all turned out to be genuine buyers cos they've got boats !!!
There are also several who believe what is currently the norm cannot be changed & are not prepared to even make the effort to be innovative. Reminds me of the stories of brokers in a nice warm office passing the keys to prospective punters & letting them get on with it.I wonder how many of these forumites have something to do with the boat sales business
I don't sell boats for a living, but what I do is to listen to customers & come up with ideas that are innovative. In the last couple of years I came up with the bright idea of starting a service for my competitors, & letting them have that service for free . We are now moving into premises three times the size of our current place & are in excess of 80% up on last year. That's just the start, the potential is huge, & this sort of thinking can be applied to most businesses with equally good results, if you can be bothered

 

[gjgm]

R/D, can I ask, how many boats have you sold, and how did you sell them?

 

[Nick_H]

the broker/dealer (whichever) takes a 10% deposit prior to demo on the contractual understanding that if the sea trial is in any way adverse i.e the buyer finds fault (any fault at all) that could not have been identified without trial - he/she gets full deposit back without question

IIRC, that's not the case with the standard AYBA contract. I can't remember exactly, as I haven't looked at one for a few years, but I think it reads something like "a material fault that cannot be remedied within x days". So, if you don't want to proceed after sea trial you have potential tricky legal definitions of "fault" and "material" to argue over. Is excess slamming in a head sea a fault, or a characteristic of the boat? What about if the boat creaks like a barn door when it rolls in a beam sea - fault or characteristic?

I'm amazed that so many people think you can decide if a boat is for you without ever driving it. I wonder why MBY bother to take boats out for a spin when they review them, if you can tell everything you need to about a boat whilst its safely tied up in the marina?

 

[gjgm]

IIRC, that's not the case with the standard AYBA contract. I can't remember exactly, as I haven't looked at one for a few years, but I think it reads something like "a material fault that cannot be remedied within x days". So, if you don't want to proceed after sea trial you have potential tricky legal definitions of "fault" and "material" to argue over. Is excess slamming in a head sea a fault, or a characteristic of the boat? What about if the boat creaks like a barn door when it rolls in a beam sea - fault or characteristic?

I'm amazed that so many people think you can decide if a boat is for you without ever driving it. I wonder why MBY bother to take boats out for a spin when they review them, if you can tell everything you need to about a boat whilst its safely tied up in the marina?

You do recall correctly, Nick.
I think there has to be some defense for a seller that his boat doesnt become part of the local marina try-a-boat situation.I think the cost of lift out,survey,deposit is enough to demonstrate a commitment, but the seller is still entitled to some protection as he has agreed not to sell to to anyone else.
Personally, if a prospective buyer has gone to those lengths, I would imagine he is faily certain about the boat, and I would be happy to agree he could withdraw if, despite his efforts and research, he had got it all wrong. So, I suggest the standard contract is there to stop time wasters, but can easily be modified on a bilateral agreement.
What I dont agree with is the idea you can turn up and test drive my boat to see if you like it, without offering any commitment.

 

[pappaecho]

So called brokers are a law for themselves. I went through the buying process on one boat and arranged a survey. The broker phoned the surveyor and demanded a copy.

My most recent purchase was a Princess 33, which was stated in the brokers notes as having " full osmosis treatment 2007".

The surveyor in this occasion had surveyed the boat in 2005, and his report said osmosis reported in 2005 was still not treated in 2010. I threathened to sue for gross misrepresenation and the cost of the survey. His excuse was "thats what the owner told me".
Owner said otherwise, so I got a £5000 discount.

{"Osmosis" turned out to be pitting, not osmosis}

 

[henryf]

Rest my case rubber duck! with this policy you would fit nicely into the 'less reputable broker box' wouldnt you? my point is, the broker/dealer (whichever) takes a 10% deposit prior to demo on the contractual understanding that if the sea trial is in any way adverse i.e the buyer finds fault (any fault at all) that could not have been identified without trial - he/she gets full deposit back without question (unless the buyer willingly re negotiates with owner). that way the buyer is not hit in the pocket through no fault of thier own, why should they incur costs in the early buying stages if the boat if not up to scratch? the grey area comes where the boat is ashore and lifing fees have been incurred to launch the boat for trial. tricky one.

if i were a buyer i would rather put down a fully refundable deposit, removing the boat from the market, instead of paying for brokers time, which they are already being paid for by the owner, unless i buy it or find major fault. Be realistic a catalalogue of minor faults will put anybody off, its an omen. but under your terms the buyer doesnt have a leg to stand on because none of them major. Oh well dig deep for another test run on something else, fingers crossed this time eh!

dont think so, do you?

Several pages ago I also suggested a paid for sea trial refunded against any subsequent purchase and outlined my reasons.

So what happens when the buyer turns round and says, "I'm not sure if it's really what we're looking for. The kids don't really like being at sea", or "to be honest whilst it's very nice I'm not sure we want to spend this much money. We just wanted to see what a larger boat at twice our budget is like but I think we're going to buy the Merry Fisher. Thanks for your time, can we have our money back please?"

A fully refundable deposit isn't worth a bean and could cost the vendor a potential sale. If you need someone to hand over cash, which they get back whenever they want, just to take them seriously then something is very wrong.

As I said in my original post at the moment Brokers take everything they can get hold of into stock and take the vendor at their word re: any descriptions. By charging for sea trials Brokers would be encouraged to qualify the boats a little more before taking them on for fear of being labled a purveyor of absolute tat. "Paid for a sea trial at X brokers and the thing turned out to be a total pile of poo, wouldn't even make it up on the plane". Others come on here saying they had a similar experience and all of a sudden broker X isn't people's first port of call.

What needs to happen is for a thinking broker to trial boats themselves with the vendor to pre-qualify the boat prior to listing it. That way they would have actual first hand knowledge.

A dealer who physically buys in the boat will have done this and so is likely to be selling a far better boat. They also have to offer some form of guarantee and the boat must match their description.

Brokers, like estate agents, have very little to offer by way of advice and specific craft knowledge. They merely have an established route to Market and in the case of better brokers a selection of several craft in one location.

The charged for sea trial is surely a benefit to a would be purchaser because it allows them to test for all aspects of the boat without any pressure to purchase.

A dealer who physically owns the craft might choose to offer free sea trials because they stand to make a larger margin and have more of a reputation to maintain. In the case of a dealer associated with a manufacturing brand they are also trying to sell the brand against it's competitors.

When we make the jump to a larger boat I think I would like a sea trial just to see how much different things like ride are. In my case I suspect My relationship with the dealer / brand would allow me to arrange this free of charge (I've bought a new boat from them already), but if it was charged for I would have no problem and probably use it as a trip to go for lunch, moor up, have a good poke around, come back and so on. If we decided that ultimately the larger boat didn't offer us a great enough benefit for the extra cash then we could walk away without feeling guilty because we'd paid for their time and costs.

In fact the worst thing they could do in my case would be to lend me a boat for the weekend because getting back on your current boat would seem a let down and you'd have to find the money!!

Buying anything, boats included shouldn't be an us and them situation but it always seems to end up that way on Internet forums. I've made my best deals where there is laughter and good humour thrown in. No one likes to feel backed into a corner, their natural defense is to clam up and run away. There must be a bit of meat on bone for both sides come handshake time and if you're going to bid someone in the balls have the decency to acknowledge the fact you're doing so and ideally explain why you're doing it. They are far more likely to take the pill.

Henry

 

[gjgm]

Not sure the idea of a broker testing a boat takes you anywhere. The broker, however reputable, is paid for selling the boat, and paid by the current owner. As a buyer, I'm not that interested in what the broker thinks of the boat; it isnt him who is going to be paying for it, and running it.
Surely you can find much out about a boat from forums,internet,magazines... what value does a not very independently placed broker add !

 

[OAF]

My company brokers boats for people and it also buys and sells boats, I too own my own boat that I have bought through a broker so I thought that I would throw my two-penneth in.

As brokers we really want a sale, its what pays everyone's wages but we do have to act for both parties involved and look after both parties interests, when acting for a vendor we have to make sure that the prospective buyer is genuine and that when allowing a survey and sea trial to take place we must have some form of security, a, to show serous intention to purchase and,b, to insure that when the survey and subsequent sea trial is carried out that any damage that could be caused to the boat by the prospective customer and his surveyor is covered by that deposit. Yes I know that surveyors have insurance but to get any money out of the insurance could take a good while so a deposit will go some way to protect the interests of the vendor.

You can compare the buying of high performance cars, if the sale is being handled by a broker, a few years ago I went to buy a Ferrari, I didn't know if it was the dealers or not, after inspecting the vehicle I had to place a deposit before I was allowed to test drive the car, I did and subsequently bought it.

The same process happened when I bought my current boat, I don't see any issue with this, as long as the broker is using escrow accounts and you both agree the terms of the contract then what is the problem?

If in any doubt you could always place your deposit with your solicitor?

As others have said, dealing direct with the owner and not a broker is always a lot different and deposits might not be required, then the owner is taking responsibility for his own boat and not an agent, buying privately can be fraught with other problems though, 'you pays your money you takes your chance' as the saying goes!

All my opinion of course.

 

[Tranona]

It is inevitable that views get polarised. Read through this thread and you will see that potential buyers think they are not treated well and their needs are not met. And surprise, surprise, sellers will tell you about the time wasters and broken promises.

That is inevitable because the two parties have different perspectives. A deal is only possible if there is common ground, and that is what the "standard" contract tries to achieve. It does not mean it is perfect - how could anything standard be? but it is a tried and tested mechanism that seeks to balance both (or all three if a broker is involved) parties' expectations.

The fundamental flaw in some peoples' thinking is to try and equate the purchase of a private persons' property to a business - and it is not. It is a one off transaction between two strangers both of whom want to protect their own interests. Once you accept this fundamental proposition most of the problems go away. That may well mean that the buyer does not get the sort of experience he might have when dealing with somebody who is entering the exchange with a view to profit. Equally the seller has everything hanging on the one transaction and may well be cautious about how much access he allows to a potential buyer. The broker sits in the middle trying to balance out each partys' needs and ensuring that any costs are met by the person responsible for the costs. The contract and the law behind it is what regulates that process and ensures that each party's interests are protected. If you did not have that and just made it up as you went along the potential for failure increases.

It is not a matter of having "entrenched" views - it is recognising that tried and tested methods when you are dealing with private property are better than so called "innovation". This does not, of course mean that nothing changes over time, but there needs to be demonstration that change is a real improvement, and not just a response to one or two people who don't like, for whatever reason, the existing system.

 

[PaulGooch]

Doesn't the latest "standard" contract allow a buyer to back out "for any reason" ?

 

[OAF]

It is inevitable that views get polarised. Read through this thread and you will see that potential buyers think they are not treated well and their needs are not met. And surprise, surprise, sellers will tell you about the time wasters and broken promises.

That is inevitable because the two parties have different perspectives. A deal is only possible if there is common ground, and that is what the "standard" contract tries to achieve. It does not mean it is perfect - how could anything standard be? but it is a tried and tested mechanism that seeks to balance both (or all three if a broker is involved) parties' expectations.

The fundamental flaw in some peoples' thinking is to try and equate the purchase of a private persons' property to a business - and it is not. It is a one off transaction between two strangers both of whom want to protect their own interests. Once you accept this fundamental proposition most of the problems go away. That may well mean that the buyer does not get the sort of experience he might have when dealing with somebody who is entering the exchange with a view to profit. Equally the seller has everything hanging on the one transaction and may well be cautious about how much access he allows to a potential buyer. The broker sits in the middle trying to balance out each partys' needs and ensuring that any costs are met by the person responsible for the costs. The contract and the law behind it is what regulates that process and ensures that each party's interests are protected. If you did not have that and just made it up as you went along the potential for failure increases.

It is not a matter of having "entrenched" views - it is recognising that tried and tested methods when you are dealing with private property are better than so called "innovation". This does not, of course mean that nothing changes over time, but there needs to be demonstration that change is a real improvement, and not just a response to one or two people who don't like, for whatever reason, the existing system.

WELL SAID!

 

[boatmaster]

It is inevitable that views get polarised. Read through this thread and you will see that potential buyers think they are not treated well and their needs are not met. And surprise, surprise, sellers will tell you about the time wasters and broken promises.

That is inevitable because the two parties have different perspectives. A deal is only possible if there is common ground, and that is what the "standard" contract tries to achieve. It does not mean it is perfect - how could anything standard be? but it is a tried and tested mechanism that seeks to balance both (or all three if a broker is involved) parties' expectations.

The fundamental flaw in some peoples' thinking is to try and equate the purchase of a private persons' property to a business - and it is not. It is a one off transaction between two strangers both of whom want to protect their own interests. Once you accept this fundamental proposition most of the problems go away. That may well mean that the buyer does not get the sort of experience he might have when dealing with somebody who is entering the exchange with a view to profit. Equally the seller has everything hanging on the one transaction and may well be cautious about how much access he allows to a potential buyer. The broker sits in the middle trying to balance out each partys' needs and ensuring that any costs are met by the person responsible for the costs. The contract and the law behind it is what regulates that process and ensures that each party's interests are protected. If you did not have that and just made it up as you went along the potential for failure increases.

It is not a matter of having "entrenched" views - it is recognising that tried and tested methods when you are dealing with private property are better than so called "innovation". This does not, of course mean that nothing changes over time, but there needs to be demonstration that change is a real improvement, and not just a response to one or two people who don't like, for whatever reason, the existing system.

A very good simplification to a complex matter. standard contract for standard procedure, any deviation fron the norm can be annexed to the standard contract in the 'clauses' section in for instance ABYA contaract, I think!

very well written Tranona